(March 27, 2014 at 8:01 am)Heywood Wrote:(March 27, 2014 at 7:38 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'm afraid I am a little bit lost, yes. One would not hesitate to assume a certain posture if it would increase the chances of a baby's survival were it to be unwell. If I read your argument correctly, you consider the potential of an entity the critical factor in what moral obligations one has towards it. So what I'm not getting is why you consider a zygote and a baby, who have the same potential, to be worthy of different degrees of intervention for their protection.
Moral protection means society has an obligation to protect that being from deliberately being harmed by another being. Abortion is an act which deliberately harms another being. Its black and white.
The obligation to protect a being from unintentional harm is not black and white. You don't have an obligation to save the child that fell into the path of an on coming train if doing so means sacrificing your own life. Now you may choose to put your life in jeopardy to save your son and not choose to put your life in jeopardy to save a zygote. The reason is because you value your son more than a zygote.
So the distinction then is that we have an obligation to protect people from intentional harm, but not from unintentional harm?
Why?
Quote: Abortion is an act which deliberately harms another being. Its black and white.Sadly, very little in life is black and white. Abortion certainly isn't. Is killing always wrong?
"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
